vpFREE2 Forums

8 NOV 2005 Bob Dancer CasinoGaming Column

I believe that you have misinterpreted Harry's post.

My take on Harry's post was that participants aren't likely to
change their own personal standards as a result of an ethics
discussion on vpFREE.

Whether they change their opinion of someone else's ethics
is another matter.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 19 Nov 2005 at 7:05, jw776655 wrote:

What I meant by narcissistic is his belief that everyone reading the
discussion will be as unable as he apparently is to read the various
points and, in some cases, change their evaluation of the party in
question. As in "I think. Therefore you are."

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@y...>
wrote:

I believe that you have misinterpreted Harry's post.

My take on Harry's post was that participants aren't likely to

change their own personal standards as a result of an ethics discussion
on vpFREE.

Whether they change their opinion of someone else's ethics is

another matter.
<<<

I am posting this reply on free^2, even though I believe this
topic/debate rightfully belongs on the main board.

It's a common refrain that debates don't change minds, they just
reinforce already held views. But I believe a well argued point can
change viewpoints, perhaps even clarify murky ethical situations.

I would like to say that I enjoy reading 80-90% of Harry's posts, they
tend to be well written and thoughtful, but, I do get annoyed when he
tries to stifle discussions on vpFree, or push topics over here on
free^2, a sure end to a vigorous debate. Harry on several occasions has
posted these suggestions on vpFree, and glaringly absent is the
Administrators usual rebuke, of leaving the administering to the
administrator. I am making the assumption here that Harry was not
privately rebuked, since Harry seems to be a rule abiding fellow, and
would not cross the administrator. The occasional inconsistent
enforcement of vpFree rules by the administrator is truly a small
point, and not my main concern here.

My concern is to encourage greater participation in vpFree NOT less. I
would rather delete and ignore 200 lousy posts to get at two great post
than delete 50 lousy posts to get at one mediocre post. The hot button
topics tend to generate greater participation, which I see as a good
thing.

I would opt for a much more narrow interpretation of "Negative Personal
Comments", outright name calling should be banned, but, vigorious
discussion of vpFree posts or hyper-linked articles should be "freely"
allowed.

I would note that "Bob" seems more than capable of defending himself
from the occasional harsh criticism he has received. Some of his replys
have even been somewhat entertaining. I would like to hear his take on
what percent of his $1,000,000 win was due to E.V. and what percent was
due to luck. I'm sure with his meticulous record keeping this would be
easy to answer.

posts, they tend to be well written and thoughtful, but, I do get
annoyed when he tries to stifle discussions on vpFree, or push topics
over here on free^2, a sure end to a vigorous debate. Harry on several
occasions has posted these suggestions on vpFree, and glaringly absent
is the administrators usual rebuke, of leaving the administering to
the administrator. I am making the assumption here that Harry was not
privately rebuked, since Harry seems to be a rule abiding fellow, and
would not cross the administrator. The occasional inconsistent
enforcement of vpFree rules by the administrator is truly a small
point, and not my main concern here....<<<<

It was nice of Harry to give a prompt example of his "special status"
on vpFree, in posting his concern of my post concerning "Bob Dancer"

Thanks Harry.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_mavin" <vp_mavin@y...> wrote:

...I would like to say that I enjoy reading 80-90% of Harry's

I am posting this reply on free^2, even though I believe this
topic/debate rightfully belongs on the main board.

It's a common refrain that debates don't change minds, they just
reinforce already held views. But I believe a well argued point

can

change viewpoints, perhaps even clarify murky ethical situations.

I would like to say that I enjoy reading 80-90% of Harry's posts,

they

tend to be well written and thoughtful, but, I do get annoyed when

he

tries to stifle discussions on vpFree, or push topics over here on
free^2, a sure end to a vigorous debate. Harry on several

occasions has

posted these suggestions on vpFree, and glaringly absent is the
Administrators usual rebuke, of leaving the administering to the
administrator. I am making the assumption here that Harry was not
privately rebuked, since Harry seems to be a rule abiding fellow,

and

would not cross the administrator. The occasional inconsistent
enforcement of vpFree rules by the administrator is truly a small
point, and not my main concern here.

My concern is to encourage greater participation in vpFree NOT

less. I

would rather delete and ignore 200 lousy posts to get at two great

post

than delete 50 lousy posts to get at one mediocre post. The hot

button

topics tend to generate greater participation, which I see as a

good

thing.

I would opt for a much more narrow interpretation of "Negative

Personal

Comments", outright name calling should be banned, but, vigorious
discussion of vpFree posts or hyper-linked articles should

be "freely"

allowed.

I would note that "Bob" seems more than capable of defending

himself

from the occasional harsh criticism he has received. Some of his

replys

have even been somewhat entertaining. I would like to hear his

take on

what percent of his $1,000,000 win was due to E.V. and what

percent was

due to luck. I'm sure with his meticulous record keeping this

would be

easy to answer.

This was a well written post and I concur. [Remaining opinions
deleted by author to avoid being told I'm wrong by the admin]

There's the real rub, no? I expect that most of the very active
vpFREE contributors avidly follow other discussion groups, so why is
it that when a topic is moved here it withers on the vine?

It's all the more puzzling when the original vpFREE discussion draws a
flurry of activity from at least two members (and often more) before
being moved here, only to die a quick death subsequently.

I don't think members, who'd otherwise chime in, can't be bothered to
make the effort for no particular reason. Obviously most have tuned
out as a consequence of past discussion activity here.

There's a role to be served by this group. Whaddaya say we take some
pains to bring it back to life.

- H.

···

On the subject of sidelining discussions to FvF, vp_mavin wrote:

... or push topics over here on free^2, a sure end to a vigorous
debate.

vpFREE Administrator wrote:

>>> I believe that you have misinterpreted Harry's post.

My take on Harry's post was that participants aren't likely to
change their own personal standards as a result of an ethics discussion
on vpFREE.
  
Whether they change their opinion of someone else's ethics is
another matter. <<<

"vp_mavin" replied:

I am posting this reply on free^2, even though I believe this
topic/debate rightfully belongs on the main board.

You are entitled to your opinion, however the best reason for
replying on FREEvpFREE is because that's where the message
you're replying to was posted.

It's a common refrain that debates don't change minds, they just
reinforce already held views. But I believe a well argued point can
change viewpoints, perhaps even clarify murky ethical situations.

It's a possibility, but I agree with Harry that ethics debates on
internet forums aren't very likely to change the minds of the
debaters.

Ethics discussions are fine on vpFREE, as long as they don't
get personally negative.

I would like to say that I enjoy reading 80-90% of Harry's posts, they
tend to be well written and thoughtful, but, I do get annoyed when he
tries to stifle discussions on vpFree, or push topics over here on
free^2, a sure end to a vigorous debate.

Fair enough.

Harry on several occasions has
posted these suggestions on vpFree, and glaringly absent is the
Administrators usual rebuke, of leaving the administering to the
administrator.

Please give examples of the "usual rebuke" to individual
violators of the "no Asst. Administrator" posting guideline.

In order for an event to be glaring it must deviate from an
established practice or pattern. The "no Asst. Administrator"
exhortation, like many other vpFREE posting guidelines, has
been largely platitudinal in nature and public enforcement
hasn't been a priority item. I don't care to research, but don't
believe that a pattern of "usual rebukes" exists.

I am making the assumption here that Harry was not
privately rebuked,

Your assumption is very presumptive. Whether or not
Harry was privately rebuked isn't your concern.

since Harry seems to be a rule abiding fellow, and
would not cross the administrator.

I'm a big Harry Porter fan, but neither your observation
or assertion is completely accurate.

The occasional inconsistent
enforcement of vpFree rules by the administrator is truly a small
point, and not my main concern here.

Any input into perceived inconsistent enforcement of vpFREE
Rules and Policies is always welcome. I'm not aware of ANY
inconsistencies, and if their are some it's a function of ineptitude
rather than intent.

My concern is to encourage greater participation in vpFree NOT less. I
would rather delete and ignore 200 lousy posts to get at two great post
than delete 50 lousy posts to get at one mediocre post.

This sounds reasonable, depending on your definition of
"lousy posts". If it includes NPC posts then I disagree.

The hot button topics tend to generate greater participation,
which I see as a good thing.

So long as it doesn't violate the Posting Guidelines.

I would opt for a much more narrow interpretation of "Negative
Personal Comments", outright name calling should be banned, but,
vigorious discussion of vpFree posts or hyper-linked articles should
be "freely" allowed.

Discussion of any topic is allowed on vpFREE. NPC aren't
a necessary ingredient.

I would note that "Bob" seems more than capable of defending himself
from the occasional harsh criticism he has received. Some of his replys
have even been somewhat entertaining.

IMO, Bob (and everyone else) would always come of better
if they always took the high road and never got personal in
negative situations,

I would like to hear his take on
what percent of his $1,000,000 win was due to E.V. and what percent
was due to luck. I'm sure with his meticulous record keeping this would
be easy to answer.

He apparently doesn't care to answer your question. As I recall
you requested, and your friend Thymos seconded, such a request
on vpFREE, and it has been ignored by Dancer. You might
consider asking directly via a private email to BD.

vpFREE Administrator

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

> ... or push topics over here on free^2, a sure end to a vigorous
> debate.

There's the real rub, no? I expect that most of the very active
vpFREE contributors avidly follow other discussion groups, so why is
it that when a topic is moved here it withers on the vine?

It's all the more puzzling when the original vpFREE discussion

draws a

flurry of activity from at least two members (and often more) before
being moved here, only to die a quick death subsequently.

I don't think members, who'd otherwise chime in, can't be bothered

to

make the effort for no particular reason. Obviously most have tuned
out as a consequence of past discussion activity here.

There's a role to be served by this group. Whaddaya say we take

some

pains to bring it back to life.

- H.

At the moment vpfree has 20 times more members than fvf. I think that
speaks volumes as to why discussions die here. You will need to start
a membership drive if you really want discussions to flourish on this
forum. However, just look at all the "enough alreadies" and "take
this FVF" on the vpfree forum to indicate how much interest people
have in this forum.

Dick

Dick

···

On the subject of sidelining discussions to FvF, vp_mavin wrote: